[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by *Kate*

Oh dear, are you still beating this to death Pyra. I don't think its Kizzy who's not staying on topic,.the thread is about the BBC primarily, not just the licence fee. I didn't intend the thread to be used to repeatedly hammer home the fact that you think we are criminals, fine, we get it. I accept it. Once you made the point why keep repeating it.

Can I politely request that the thread moves on, or is closed if the sniping continues.

Now, The BBC...are they doing a good job? We've dealt with licensing more than enough. How about quality of programmes etc?

I think you should have the option of not receiving the BBC if you don't like the channel and don't want to pay the license. Like I said I pay my licence fee but I don't even have any of the Irish channels............that's infuriating

[thesheriff443]

i pay it in one go im not happy but thats life.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think you should have the option of not receiving the BBC if you don't like the channel and don't to pay the license. Like I said I pay my licence fee but I don't even have any of the Irish channels............that's infuriating

Unfortunately, they know just how much money they'd lose if people had the option. Given that you don't need a license to watch BBC iPlayer or other catch up services.

[Livia]

My Dad has Sky and pays a fortune every month for it. The only thing he watches on it that he couldn't see on Freeview is football and the odd film. And some sporting events and films cost extra. By comparison, I don't consider the TV licence that bad considering what you get, and it doesn't just pay for the BBC as has already been covered at length.

I do think the BBC has wasted a lost of money with its costly relocation and I'll be really sad to see the iconic Broadcasting Centre close in 2015.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by *Kate*

Now, The BBC...are they doing a good job? We've dealt with licensing more than enough. How about quality of programmes etc?

I am happy to answer that *Kate* and I would say to that,yes on some things the BBC does have quality programmes,they are though getting fewer and fewer,apart from the documentaries,(they are really good) but I have seen many really good documentaries on other channels too.

All Sport is really good on the BBC, I do doubt that any other channel could do the justice to Wimbledon for instance that the BBC does.

I find a lot of it's news and political programmes largely biased, that is my view anyway.

It used to be really good on drama too but that is slipping and it's recent efforts with entertainment like the Voice that showed great promise at the start has been allowed to really slip away at massive cost too.

Take Eastenders out of the equation and you are left with little in the way of serial drama really worth watching.
Add to that, now at 'least' 20% of what it transmits are repeats whether recent or from way back.

Overall,I would say a third of programming now on the BBC is really good or outstanding and the other two thirds,nothing special at all and a good proportion of that hardly worth watching at all.

Originally Posted by Livia

My Dad has Sky and pays a fortune every month for it. The only thing he watches on it that he couldn't see on Freeview is football and the odd film. And some sporting events and films cost extra. By comparison, I don't consider the TV licence that bad considering what you get, and it doesn't just pay for the BBC as has already been covered at length.

I do think the BBC has wasted a lost of money with its costly relocation and I'll be really sad to see the iconic Broadcasting Centre close in 2015.

I went to see the old pebble mill when I first moved up to Birmingham. It's a pile of rubble. BBC in Birmingham is in the soulless mailbox complex now.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think you should have the option of not receiving the BBC if you don't like the channel and don't have to pay the license. Like I said I pay my licence fee but I don't even have any of the Irish channels............that's infuriating

Now this is actually a great suggestion and were it available, I'd be on board. As I mentioned earlier I only really watch Eastenders and the odd documentary so could easily manage without.

Sadly though, as 08marsh said, it will never come into effect as the majority would probably seize the chance and the Beeb would lose a lot of annual revenue. They are too staid, rigid and grasping to ever consider other possibilities of bringing home the bacon. This is why I believe, as per the OP, that they need dragging into the modern age.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by *Kate*

Oh dear, are you still beating this to death Pyra. I don't think its Kizzy who's not staying on topic.....plus the thread is about the BBC primarily, not JUST the licence fee. I didn't intend the thread to be used to repeatedly hammer home the fact that you think we are criminals, fine, we get it. I accept it. Once you made the point why keep repeating it.

Can I politely request that the thread moves on, or is closed if the sniping continues.

Now, The BBC...are they doing a good job? We've dealt with licensing more than enough. How about quality of programmes etc?

It is a debate Kate, that is sometimes how debates work - I am the one who has avoided continually bringing into tow things that really have nothing to do with the thread (such as politicians etc).

The thread is about the BBC and the tv licence.

I think the quality of many of the programmes is excellent - otherwise I would not spend much of my time watching some fascinating documentaries, natural history programmes on all BBC channels - as well as those shown on other channels such as Eden etc; which were made for the BBC and shown on these channels.

Given that the BBC is not funded my major sponsorships (Virgin Media, Vodaphone etc) to generate revenue together with a plethora of continually interrupted programmes full of rubbish adverts for products that I mostly have no interest in - that money has to come from somewhere - partly in the licence, and partly from other sources.

I think it is part of what makes the UK great - not only for it's entertainments, dramas, documentaries, sport coverage: but also that it is world reknown as far as World News is concerned, it's numerous radio stations listened to all over the World.

It's worth far more than the some of the awful sat channels that are littered every 20 minutes with about 5 minutes full of adverts. It may have it's down sides: but it's pros most definately outweight its cons. IMO.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think you should have the option of not receiving the BBC if you don't like the channel and don't have to pay the license. Like I said I pay my licence fee but I don't even have any of the Irish channels............that's infuriating

People should have that option at least yes. I would be all for that too.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

People should have that option at least yes. I would be all for that too.

I believe years ago, they used to be able to do exactly that. There are also ways which you don't have to pay for the licence, conditions under which I am sure you will already be aware of, given your previous campaigns over the last few years.

The advent of the internet etc has added to the 'bigger picture' and has not made what 'used' to be an easy option of having your old tv fixed so it could not receive BBC.....

They are looking into it Joey as they are aware that it appears less people may be viewing live streaming - as opposed to catching up with BBC I-Player etc. They are very aware of how modern technology is changing.

Like everything else of this magnitude though: it requires much research and careful analysis - which may unfortunately take years to come about.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

At the risk of repeating myself - this is not a Political Party Broadcast Kizzy.

Plenty of very politically minded threads for you to vent your disgust at the Tories for - you know, the ones that inherited what Labour left for them after..... oh, let me think, about ten years or so? Can you try to remain on topic - after all, this is not about only the BBC, the TV licence encompasses so much more.

For the sake of civility, I would politely ask that you refrain from being quite so sanctimonious with comments suc as such as 'you feel sorrry for those who are so blinkered that they they cannot or will not see.....". People are entitle to their opinion Kizzy, without the need for such withering words. It really is unnecessary and adds nothing to good debate. I understand your opinion, I respect your right to your opinoin on not paying for a tv lic, I simply don't agree with it.

You may not agree with me, but the bottom line is and the fact of the matter is: not paying for a tv licence and watching the live services in the manner you do: is a criminal offence - that is fact and no matter what you bring into play as a deflective on the topic: will not change that.

It matters not what other things out there are not a criminal offence that you regard as 'should be' - it does not dilute the matter of tv licencing and the legalities that surround it, and the reason that it is exists currently.

I am well aware of that, just trying to clarify my point pyra,

Why are you suggesting my comparison to the expenses frauds are aimed specifically at the conservatives?...I was not party specific, any politician defrauding is the same in my book.

If it's not about the BBC what is it about?...What more does it encompass?

I am well aware it is a criminal offence, I still have no idea why?...Nobody has shed any light on that issue....

You feel my view is sanctamonious?...''Those who don't pay their TV licence are no better than benefit cheats''....that's sanctimonious....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I am struggling to understand how the answer to protesting against someone else's criminality is by committing it yourself. Doesn't that make you as bad as the politicians you're dead set against?

What criminality?...who else is a criminal?...
It makes them as bad as me marsh...That is my whole point.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Like anything else in this world in a similar footing Kizzy.... the BBC is a business when all is said and done.

Businesses run on money and power.

Here's an interesting bit of reading. Their Annual Report & Trust Statment.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/resourc...ent_110705.pdf

Page 26 onwards has some good points - including many recommendations covering the current use internet access for non live streaming.

If that is the case then why are they still funded by the public?...
You just shot holes in your point pyra.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kizzy

What criminality?...who else is a criminal?...
It makes them as bad as me marsh...That is my whole point.

No my point was you are disgusted with someone's fraudulence, but is it as an excuse for your own illegal decisions? I'm a bit confused.

Isn't that like saying the next door neighbours nicked food from the local shop so I thought it would be fine for me to do it aswell?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

No my point was you are disgusted with someone's fraudulence, but is it as an excuse for your own illegal decisions? I'm a bit confused.

Isn't that like saying the next door neighbours nicked food from the local shop so I thought it would be fine for me to do it aswell?

No it is nothing like that at all... If my neighbour stole it would be stealing, which is a criminal offence.
Fiddling expenses is not....Do you understand now?

Anyhoo, this is not what kate intended in her OP I respect that and I have made my point I feel.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I am well aware of that, just trying to clarify my point pyra,

Why are you suggesting my comparison to the expenses frauds are aimed specifically at the conservatives?...I was not party specific, any politician defrauding is the same in my book.

If it's not about the BBC what is it about?...What more does it encompass?

I am well aware it is a criminal offence, I still have no idea why?...Nobody has shed any light on that issue....

You feel my view is sanctamonious?...''Those who don't pay their TV licence are no better than benefit cheats''....that's sanctimonious....

Someone who takes something fraudualanty is a cheat. Whether it be Government Benefits, or a service that is provided. I'd have thought that was clear to be honest. It is not santicmonious, it is fact.

As for your 'neighbour' vs the fiddling expenses or defrauding with comparison: You do realise (I already mentioned this pages ago) - that there have been Government members who have been charged and imprisoned having been found guilty of such - and made to pay back monies. Perhaps not in high numbers: but that still remains a fact.

In answer to your political party: no one needs question where your political allegiance lies: given that regardless of topic Kizzy - you condemn and criticise the current Government at every slight turn - whether it has to do with the subject matter or not.


Re your questions on the BBC, I've provided more than enough links. I shall not repeat doing that, nor repeat what both I and other posters have mentioned time and time again in respect of what the BBC offer. There are more than enough posts for you to have gleaned what else the BBC offer.

Originally Posted by kizzy

If that is the case then why are they still funded by the public?...
You just shot holes in your point pyra.

To use comparisons that are necessary to explain: before privitisation came into play:- Railways were government owned: they ran as business. Local Electricity companies: government controlled, ran like businesses. Local Gas companies - government controlled, ran like businesses. Royal Mail - government owned: ran and operates like a business. No holes, just reality. The BBC falls into the same bracket - it is ran like a business -and businesses need money, they also need power and people in power - to make the difficult decisions, to organise, to manage, to recruit, to train, hire staff, to look after the finances, to ensure Laws and Legislations are adhered to and every other little thing that is needed to keep any such organisation ticking along.

How many people now complain bitterly about the ever increasing cost of these now private services - and the quality of the services? Far more I suspect than when they were all overseen by the Government.

You want the BBC to become privitised and not use public funds? Do you also want the same with the NHS for example? Would you like the government to butt out of there too? What about the DWP - should that be taken from the Government and run as profit based organisation in the same way that private employment / recruitment agencies do?


Charities are not regarded as 'businesses' - but they still run for a profit.

Like I said, no holes Kizzy - just plain talking and common sense.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by *Kate*

Now this is actually a great suggestion and were it available, I'd be on board. As I mentioned earlier I only really watch Eastenders and the odd documentary so could easily manage without.

Sadly though, as 08marsh said, it will never come into effect as the majority would probably seize the chance and the Beeb would lose a lot of annual revenue. They are too staid, rigid and grasping to ever consider other possibilities of bringing home the bacon. This is why I believe, as per the OP, that they need dragging into the modern age.

"The Voice" ...... you say the BBC need dragging into the modern day age? There was me thinking that given all the rage these days for 'reality shows' (this forum being a great example of which ones are current and 'modern') - and that raise great topics for discussion - that's a very recent one that the BBC have tried out.

What about The Apprentice. Highly successful show - again, right into the modern age.

The comedies on BBC3 for example: all pretty much upto date a lot of them. Much of the older ones are still regarded as absolute classic and are often watched again and again, through sheer delight and laughter at some real comedy gems.

8 out of 10 cats springs straight to mind. Alan Carr - Chatty Man - just how in vogue do you want them to be!

The countless educational programmes. Childrens programmes. Quiz shows. Factual shows, religious shows. History programmes. Natural world documentaries.

are you really considering the range of gendre of programmes that the BBC offer - from one organisation. Not only that: they have to encompass a wide age group - from toddlers to OAPs and not home in on a specific demographic - they have to cover all bases.

There are plenty of other broadcasting channels out there filling our screens with far more dross that ever the BBC does, that for sure.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

"The Voice" ...... you say the BBC need dragging into the modern day age? There was me thinking that given all the rage these days for 'reality shows' (this forum being a great example of which ones are current and 'modern') - and that raise great topics for discussion - that's a very recent one that the BBC have tried out.

What about The Apprentice. Highly successful show - again, right into the modern age.

The comedies on BBC3 for example: all pretty much upto date a lot of them. Much of the older ones are still regarded as absolute classic and are often watched again and again, through sheer delight and laughter at some real comedy gems.

8 out of 10 cats springs straight to mind. Alan Carr - Chatty Man - just how in vogue do you want them to be!

The countless educational programmes. Childrens programmes. Quiz shows. Factual shows, religious shows. History programmes. Natural world documentaries.

are you really considering the range of gendre of programmes that the BBC offer - from one organisation. Not only that: they have to encompass a wide age group - from toddlers to OAPs and not home in on a specific demographic - they have to cover all bases.

There are plenty of other broadcasting channels out there filling our screens with far more dross that ever the BBC does, that for sure.

The Voice - has been a shambles from start to finish (Imo, but I'm sure I'm not alone) it was badly organised, a real shame considering the amount of talent, which incidentally is not reflected in the final line-up apart from one artist (Bo) but that's digressing. The voting system is piss poor and despite the knocks the X factor gets, the Voice is a very pale shadow. The premise of the show had/has great potential, but they stuffed it up.

8 out of 10 Cats on BBC1? Really?

Yes I am considering the range of genre the BBC offer, every channel offers a wide variety for all ages and tastes to make up a schedule, some good, some not so much. There are far too many repeats on the BBC, regardless of the fact that there are a lot of comedy classics, they shouldn't be charging for people to watch the same stuff over and over again, would you go to the cinema two weeks in a row and pay to watch exactly the same thing?

We are not discussing the dross other channels offer, though they too need to seriously buck their ideas up in some departments, I'm not just bashing the Beeb and saying they are bad, commercial tv is good. Not at all. But they don't charge for it and the Beeb do.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd welcome a system whereby you could opt out of having the channel and not paying, maybe even pay for view for certain programmes if people wanted to watch them badly enough as a side option? But with that I doubt anyone would, given that you don't have to pay to watch anything on Iplayer, so the only detriment would be not getting to watch stuff as it's actually shown. People would prefer to save their money for other things, like food and clothing, especially the less well off, which is a very large proportion of the population, considering the state of this country at the moment.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Someone who takes something fraudualanty is a cheat. Whether it be Government Benefits, or a service that is provided. I'd have thought that was clear to be honest. It is not santicmonious, it is fact.

As for your 'neighbour' vs the fiddling expenses or defrauding with comparison: You do realise (I already mentioned this pages ago) - that there have been Government members who have been charged and imprisoned having been found guilty of such - and made to pay back monies. Perhaps not in high numbers: but that still remains a fact.

In answer to your political party: no one needs question where your political allegiance lies: given that regardless of topic Kizzy - you condemn and criticise the current Government at every slight turn - whether it has to do with the subject matter or not.


Re your questions on the BBC, I've provided more than enough links. I shall not repeat doing that, nor repeat what both I and other posters have mentioned time and time again in respect of what the BBC offer. There are more than enough posts for you to have gleaned what else the BBC offer.



To use comparisons that are necessary to explain: before privitisation came into play:- Railways were government owned: they ran as business. Local Electricity companies: government controlled, ran like businesses. Local Gas companies - government controlled, ran like businesses. Royal Mail - government owned: ran and operates like a business. No holes, just reality. The BBC falls into the same bracket - it is ran like a business -and businesses need money, they also need power and people in power - to make the difficult decisions, to organise, to manage, to recruit, to train, hire staff, to look after the finances, to ensure Laws and Legislations are adhered to and every other little thing that is needed to keep any such organisation ticking along.

How many people now complain bitterly about the ever increasing cost of these now private services - and the quality of the services? Far more I suspect than when they were all overseen by the Government.

You want the BBC to become privitised and not use public funds? Do you also want the same with the NHS for example? Would you like the government to butt out of there too? What about the DWP - should that be taken from the Government and run as profit based organisation in the same way that private employment / recruitment agencies do?


Charities are not regarded as 'businesses' - but they still run for a profit.

Like I said, no holes Kizzy - just plain talking and common sense.

Yes they were, yet it still happens..how they ended up in prison when they had not committed any crime is a mystery, a couple of scapegoats to appease the public.....

Supposition, as I said I was not party specific.

Is the BBC owned by the government?
BBC worldwide who broadcast News24, Cbeebies, BBC HD, BBC GOLD, Dave, really, and yesterday to name a few do so with the help of Virgin Media.....


The rest of your post is so off topic and has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by *Kate*

The Voice - has been a shambles from start to finish (Imo, but I'm sure I'm not alone) it was badly organised, a real shame considering the amount of talent, which incidentally is not reflected in the final line-up apart from one artist (Bo) but that's digressing. The voting system is piss poor and despite the knocks the X factor gets, the Voice is a very pale shadow. The premise of the show had/has great potential, but they stuffed it up.

8 out of 10 Cats on BBC1? Really?

Yes I am considering the range of genre the BBC offer, every channel offers a wide variety for all ages and tastes to make up a schedule, some good, some not so much. There are far too many repeats on the BBC, regardless of the fact that there are a lot of comedy classics, they shouldn't be charging for people to watch the same stuff over and over again, would you go to the cinema two weeks in a row and pay to watch exactly the same thing?

We are not discussing the dross other channels offer, though they too need to seriously buck there ideas up in some departments, I'm not just bashing the Beeb and saying they are bad, commercial tv is good. Not at all. But they don't charge for it and the Beeb do.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd welcome a system whereby you could opt out of having the channel and not paying, maybe even pay for view for certain programmes if people wanted to watch them badly enough as a sode option? But with that I doubt anyone would, given that you don't have to pay to watch anything on Iplayer, so the only detriment would be not getting to watch stuff as it's actually shown. People would prefer to save their money for other things, like food and clothing, especially the less well off, which is a very large proportion of the population, considering the state of this country at the moment.

The BBC aren't the reason for the country being in the state it is today: and to even identify that with the BBC is imo, nothing short of ludicrious.

We are not discussing other channels then? Okay. Not much else to say really seeing as it's already been said through the countless pages.

Please try to avoid speaking for the whole of the UK Kate - you don't - so you cannot say what people would prefer to save their money for or not.

Oh... please show me were I said 8 out of Ten cats was BBC 1..... really!! Oh I didn't. I suggest you check out where it is recorded (oh...at the BBC), produced by Endemol, broadcast via Ch4. Is it starting to make a little sense Kate?....just how much BBC involvement there is?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Yes they were, yet it still happens..how they ended up in prison when they had not committed any crime is a mystery, a couple of scapegoats to appease the public.....

Supposition, as I said I was not party specific.

Is the BBC owned by the government?
BBC worldwide who broadcast News24, Cbeebies, BBC HD, BBC GOLD, Dave, really, and yesterday to name a few do so with the help of Virgin Media.....


The rest of your post is so off topic and has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

Please stop from taking the thread off topic - something that you do more and more often yourself Kizzy - but are happy to throw that accusation onto others. Kate has asked that we respect that and I am happy to do so.

Care to answer the points I raised in respect of all other forms of Government funded businesses / organisations/ as I mentioned earlier - all of which do indeed have bearing...........

[Niamh.]

I think Kate has some very valid points actually and I think people are perfectly entitled to protest by not paying their licence fee if they're not happy with the service they're getting. I think it's very wrong to force people to pay for a TV channel when some people would rather not even have it and people do have better things to spend their money on, especially when times are hard, like they are now.

The BBC may not be responsible for the state of the country but it is owned by the government so in a round about way it is and has a responsibility to help it's citizens out.......surely?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by *Kate*

The Voice - has been a shambles from start to finish (Imo, but I'm sure I'm not alone) it was badly organised, a real shame considering the amount of talent, which incidentally is not reflected in the final line-up apart from one artist (Bo) but that's digressing. The voting system is piss poor and despite the knocks the X factor gets, the Voice is a very pale shadow. The premise of the show had/has great potential, but they stuffed it up.

8 out of 10 Cats on BBC1? Really?

Yes I am considering the range of genre the BBC offer, every channel offers a wide variety for all ages and tastes to make up a schedule, some good, some not so much. There are far too many repeats on the BBC, regardless of the fact that there are a lot of comedy classics, they shouldn't be charging for people to watch the same stuff over and over again, would you go to the cinema two weeks in a row and pay to watch exactly the same thing?

We are not discussing the dross other channels offer, though they too need to seriously buck there ideas up in some departments, I'm not just bashing the Beeb and saying they are bad, commercial tv is good. Not at all. But they don't charge for it and the Beeb do.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd welcome a system whereby you could opt out of having the channel and not paying, maybe even pay for view for certain programmes if people wanted to watch them badly enough as a sode option? But with that I doubt anyone would, given that you don't have to pay to watch anything on Iplayer, so the only detriment would be not getting to watch stuff as it's actually shown. People would prefer to save their money for other things, like food and clothing, especially the less well off, which is a very large proportion of the population, considering the state of this country at the moment.

I agree the voice was ruined and caused many to simply switch off.
it does have some good programmes but to be honest I prefer channel 4 for their comedy documentary programming, news and films.
lots of the popular presenters and shows start off on C4, graham norton, johnathon ross.....we may even see 8 out of 10 cats on the BBC one day

The pay to view thing is not such a bad idea, if I had to pay to see the 'Life ' series with Sir David Attenbourough I would.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I agree the voice was ruined and caused many to simply switch off.
it does have some good programmes but to be honest I prefer channel 4 for their comedy documentary programming, news and films.
lots of the popular presenters and shows start off on C4, graham norton, johnathon ross.....we may even see 8 out of 10 cats on the BBC one day

Well... 8 out of 10 cats is produced at the BBC TV Centre.... but hey: that's surely nothing to do with the BBC and everything else that they are involved in.

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Well... 8 out of 10 cats is produced at the BBC TV Centre.... but hey: that's surely nothing to do with the BBC and everything else that they are involved in.

nit picking much? It's a C4 show, you did include it in the list of stuff the Beeb offers, I was merely commenting on that.